Delhi District Court
State vs . Bijender & Others. I.D. No. 522/16 on 20 September, 2017
In the court of Additional Session Judge04, District Shahdara,
(Model/Pilot Project Court), Room No.51, Second Floor, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Bijender & Others. I.D. No. 522/16
S.C. No. 18/15 CNR No. DLSH010006372013
FIR No. 456/12 date of institution: 06.4.2015
PS : Farsh Bazaar decision reserved on: 14.9.2017
U/s : 306/34 IPC date of decision: 20.9.2017
In the matter of
State ...State
versus
(1) Bijender alias Santo
(2) Amit Kumar
(3) Arun
all sons of Sh. Subhash Kumar
r/o H.No. 166, Gajju Katra, Ravi Dass Mandir, Shahdara, Delhi.
(4) Sunder Lal s/o Sh. Shyam Lal
r/o H.No. 166, Gajju Katra, Shahdara, Delhi.
(5) Jony s/o Sh. Dheeraj alias Dheer Singh
r/o 166, Gajju Katra, Chhota Bazaar, Shahdara, Delhi.
Presently residing at H.No. 394, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi. ...Accused
J U D G M E N T
1.1 (Introduction) - What happened that on 31.7.2012 at 11:35 am, an information was received in P.S. Farsh Bazaar, which was recorded as DD no. 19A (now Mark PW9/A) that a person namely Ravi s/o Sh. Ashok Kumar informs by his mobile phone no. 9891556970 that in S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 1 of 21 house no. 205, Gajju Katra, Ravidass Mandir, Farsh Bazaar, a boy namely Bobby, aged about 28 years, has hanged and let the police force be sent there immediately; it was informed to SI Vipin Yadav, who alongwith H.Ct. Mool Chand rushed to and reached the spot, where the dead body of male was lying on the bed, the name of deceased was revealed as Manoj and his relatives present were inquired, their statements were recorded (now Ex PW9/B, Ex PW9/C and Ex PW9/D) and the postmortem of dead body was carried on 01.08.2012 and then dead body was handed over to the relatives. However, viscera given was preserved and it was deposited in the malkhana.
1.2 On 05.08.2012, Smt. Shanti (mother of Manoj) handed over a written note (now Ex.P1/PW1) to the police that she discovered it from the pocket of coat of Manoj, consequently, the written note was seized as a suicide note (P1/PW1) by the police on 05.08.2012 by preparing seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B). In addition, statement of Smt. Shanti (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded, which names the accused persons to be abettor of suicide by Manoj, by alleging that they used to abuse the complainant and her son Manoj besides they used to intercept Manoj @ Bobby and also spat with him. The complainant asked her son Manoj to make complaint in the police station but he used to avoid it since the accused were in the neighbour. The complainant was not at her residence on the date of incident, since she had gone to her sister's house on 22.07.2012 because of her sickness and for treatment, later she came back to her residence after having information of suicide by her son Manoj @ Bobby.
S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 2 of 211.3 The suicide note (Ex.P1/PW1, is in Hindi except few words in English, which are underlined to refer them at glance) narrates (being its English version) "I, Bobby, am writing it in my full senses. I had altercation with Sunder, his nephew (i.e.bjanja) Johny and their nephews (i.e.bhateje) Santoo, Amit, Arun and A*, who had beaten me a lot, for which complaint was written to PS Farsh Bazar and then I stopped talking them, however, they people utters filthy abuses to my mother and Arun sometime intercepts me in the way and threatened to kill me and sometime his brother Santoo called a boy, who frightened me of knife and also threatened to kill me, his name is Akash, he lives in Balmiki Mohalla, he keeps meeting with thieves and that is why I was scared. He used to threat to kill me. Sunder had given money for killing me, it was so told to me by himself.
Today, I am seeing off my life which was under constant fear. O'! my mother forgive me, since I have not done anything for you. I also apologize to my both sisters sorry Babita, sorry Pooja, however, my third sister is dead for me. After my death, strict action is to be taken against Santoo, Amit, Arun, Sunder, Johny, Ankit since they have made me to die.
And I have kept Rs.1,500/ in the inner pocket my coat, which may be used for my cremation. I am leaving this world full of hatred, let my mother to forgive me. Bye bye this world. Please forgive me, my mother, you never understood me. And after my death, my Mami and Mama may not be permitted to see me. I love a lot to my mother. I love you Mummy.
A name, that is passed away. Bye bye O' life. This is my last letter [Bobby]".
[NB (A*) name is withheld in this judgment, since JCLA] 1.4 In further investigation, opinion with regard to cause of death was obtained, opinion in respect of handwritings of Manoj was ascertained from handwriting expert/FSL about written note and statement of S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 3 of 21 witnesses were recorded, besides collecting old record of copy of DD no. 2A dated 02.10.2011 (Ex.PW6/B), the MLC of 01.10.2011 (Ex.PW8/A) of Manoj/injured and written applications of 2.10.2011 (Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW9/K) of request not to take any action were collected and seized (vide memo Ex.PW9/J) in this case. The writings (A1) on application (Ex.PW6/A) and endorsement (A2) on MLC (Ex.PW8/A) were sent as specimen of admitted writing for expert examination for their comparison with the questioned writings of note (Ex.P1/PW1) and for opinion thereon.
1.5 The investigation result into chargesheet u/s 306/34 IPC against four accused namely Bijender, Sundar Lal, Amit Kumar and Arun. However, there was protest petition (since written note and statement of Shanti names six persons) and consequently, fifth accused Johny was also summoned. One more person was JCLA and it was mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet that PIR shall be filed before the Juvenile Justice Board.
2. (Charge) - The contentions of both the sides on the of charge were disposed off by detailed order dated 13.10.2016 and on 13.10.2016 itself a formal charge u/s 306/34 IPC was framed against all the five accused that on or about 31.7.2012 at house no. 205/2, Gajju Katra, Shahdara, Delhi, Manoj alias Bobby committed the suicide and all the accused abetted, for the commission of suicide, to Manoj, however, all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. (Prosecution Evidence and witnesses) In order to prove the charges against accused, the prosecution got examined 11 witnesses.
S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 4 of 21They may be classified as relative of Manoj alias Bobby (namely PW1, PW4 and PW3), doctor witnesses (namely PW2 and PW8) who had carried post morterm and given opinion about cause of death & prepared the MLC (of 1.10.2011) or rendered medical opinion; the police officers who investigated the case and remained associated in the investigation (viz. PW6, PW7 and PW9) and other police officers witnesses formal in nature (namely PW5 and PW10). Lastly an expert/senior Scientific Assistant (documents) from Regional FSL, Delhi. A brief introduction for their examination alongwith their names are enumerated as follows
(i) PW1 Smt. Shanti - to prove that deceased Manoj alias Bobby was her son, who committed the suicide on 31.07.2012, when she was at her sister's house due to her sickness, where she received information of commission of suicide by her son. Further, to establish that after cremation of her son and on 05.8.2012, she found papers in the pocket of coat of Manoj, one of them is a written note (Ex.P1/PW1), which she handed over to the police after calling her soninlaw/PW4 Chaman Singh. Lastly, to prove the police report (now Ex.PW1/A) and the allegations mentioned therein, being the basis of registration of FIR (Ex.PW5/A).
(ii) PW4 Sh. Chaman Singh - to establish that on 31.7.2012, on receipt of call of suicide by Manoj, immediately, he reached the spot, he identified the dead body in the mortuary on 01.08.2012 (Ex.PW4/A) by his statement. Further, to prove that he is a witness to the asal tehrir (Ex.PW1/A), which was lodged to the police station Farsh Bazaar after a paper was found on 05.08.2012 by his motherinlaw Smt. Shanti Devi from the coat of Manoj alias Bobby. In addition, he is witness to the seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B) of the suicide note, which was seized by the police.
(iii) PW3 Sh. Nand Kishore to establish that he is uncle of Manoj and on receipt of call of his brotherinlaw Lakshman Singh about suicide by Manoj, immediately, he reached at the spot and the body S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 5 of 21 was sent to mortuary and he gave his this statement to the police. (Further, he had to depose some more facts mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark B/PW3, however, he has not supported that aspect despite crossexamination on behalf of State).
(iv) PW2 Dr. Akash Jhanjee to prove that he carried autopsy of Manoj alias Bobby, male 26 years, and prepared postmortem report no. 1441/2012 on 01.08.2012 (Ex PW2/A) and also opined the cause of death [after considering chemical analysis of report of viscera (Mark Y/PW2), which was preserved while carrying the postmortem on the body of Manoj alias Bobby]. The cause of death was "asphyxia as a result of antemortem ligature hanging".
(v) PW11 Ms Sarita Sharma, Senior Scientific Assistant (documents) Regional FSL, Chankyapuri, Delhi - to prove that the question document/manuscript notes (Q1 and Q2) were sent for comparison and opinion with the admitted writing (A1 and A2), the same was examined and detailed reports (Ex.PW11/A dated 22.09.2015 and Ex.PW11/B dated 22.07.2016) were given visavis opinion that possibility of common authorship of writing MarkQ1, Q2, A1 and A2 cannot be ruled out on the basis of analysis and conclusion drawn.
(vi) PW9 SI Vipin Yadav - to prove that on 31.07.2012, when he was posted in police station Farsh Bazaar, DD no. 19A (Mark PW9/A) was assigned to him which was regarding commission of suicide by a person at house no. 205, Gajju Katra, Ravidass Mandir, the call was attended by him/PW9 where the name of deceased was revealed Manoj and his body was shifted to Subzi Mandi Mortuary. The statement of relatives (Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E) were recorded and request for postmortem was made and the postmortem was carried, thereafter, dead body was handed over to the relatives. The viscera sealed in wooden box was deposited in the malkhana. Further, to establish that on 05.8.2012, he again visited mother of deceased, who handed over a suicide note, which was seized by memo (Ex.PW1/B) under DD no. 19A and also recorded the statement of Smt. Shanti (Ex.PW1/A) and on the basis thereof, case FIR no. 456/2012 was got registered u/s 306 IPC in P.S. Farsh Bazaar.
S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 6 of 21He also carried further investigation inclusive of arrest of the accused persons till filing of the chargesheet, and during that phase, not only opinion in respect of cause of death was collected but also the opinion of handwriting expert/FSL was collected, after sending the suicide note and other writings there.
(vii) PW5 ASI Uma Shankar - to prove that on 08.12.2012, he was Duty Officer in P.S. Farsh Bazaar and his duty hours were from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm and on production of rukka, he recorded formal FIR no. 456/2012 dated 08.12.2012 (Ex.PW5/A) through Cipa operator.
(viii) PW10 MHC(M) ASI Rajender - to prove that he was working as Moharrir in Mess of the police station Farsh Bazaar, he maintained register no. 19 and produced extract of register no. 19 (Ex.PW10/A).
(ix) PW8 Dr. Shalini Gupta she was summoned to establish and prove previous record of MLC of 01.10.2011 of Manoj alias Bobby prepared at Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan that she examined the patient Manoj, who was brought by Ct. Bijender and the timings of examination were 10:05 pm, he was brought there with the alleged history of assault and on examination, the patient had bilateral nasal bleed and bruises present around right side of neck and he was referred to ENT department for further management, she prepared MLC no. 3414 of 01.10.2011 (Ex.PW8/A) and MLC was given to the police. [PW8 clarified that encircle portion A2 on the margin of MLC was not written by anyone or police in her presence]
(x) PW6 ASI Charan Dass - he was summoned for establishing and proving the record and facts of previous incidents of 01.10.2011 that he was posted in police station Farsh Bazaar and he was assigned DD no. 24A (Mark A/PW6/A) and on receipt of the same, he alongwith PW7 Ct. Bijender attended the spot at Gajju Katra, Shahdara, Delhi, Manoj was taken to Hedgewar Hospital, where his MLC dated 1.10.11 at 10:05 pm ( Ex.PW8/A) was prepared, on which the said Manoj had endorsed on 2.10.2011 that he does not want any action on MLC.
S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 7 of 21(xi) PW7 H.Ct. Bijender - for establishing that when in the year 2011, a DD no. 24A of 01.10.2011 was registered in the police station Farsh Bazaar, he joined H.Ct. Charan Dass (PW6) to attend that call visavis Manoj alias Bobby was taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, where his MLC was prepared, that MLC was collected and MLC was produced before H.Ct. Charan Dass.
Then on 21.8.2017 the prosecution evidence was closed after recording statement of PW11 as all the witnesses cited in the list of witnesses were examined.
4. (Statement of accused) - Then statement of all the five accused by way of general question and also, without oath u/s 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded, however, they denied the allegations explained to them by different blend of expressions either the same are incorrect or they do not know about them or nothing has happened at any point of time and so on, with plea of innocence. None of the accused has not opted for defence evidence, thus, case was put to final hearing.
5.1. (Final hearing) At the stage of final hearing, the submissions were commenced by Ms. Gyan Mitra, Advocate for accused and then by State through Sh. Shahabuddin, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State duly assisted by Shri Hoshiyar Singh, Advocate .
5.2 Ld. Defence counsel requests that it is the duty of prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, however, this duty could not have been discharged, which is appearing from the record either in the form of oral evidence or other materials. Immediately, when the inquiry was started 31.07.2012, the statements of three persons, namely, Nand Kishore, Jasbir and Laxman Dass (Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 8 of 21 and Ex.PW9/D) were recorded, on its plain reading nothing is emerging to be suspicion on any person or against any of the accused or any kind of enmity of Manoj with anyone and in fact, the body of Manoj was inside the bolted room, door was opened by leg pushing by Jasbir. There is also material contradictions and inconsistency in the statements of witnesses visavis the investigation has not been carried fairly, which is emerging from the statement of IO itself, like no official record like bank account or specimen were collected to compare them with the written note, Manoj was maintaining a pink colour diary as per statement of one of the witnesses but that has also not been seized and the previous record of 1/2.10.2011 is also full of suspicion, particularly, the MLC is bearing some notings encircled but PW8 has clarified that it was not written by Manoj in the presence of doctor/medical officer and the other record sent for expert opinion has also no authenticity, therefore, the manner in which record for handwriting ought to have been collected and examined, that exercise has not been carried by the IO. In addition, the note (Ex.P1/PW1) is on a cash memo of M/s L.D. Traders but the IO failed to verify from that trader, as to how blank cash memo came to the said Manoj, if it was so written by him. All these circumstances are not of natural events, particularly on 31.07.2012 itself, the entire place of occurrence and surroundings were searched and inspected but no such note was found by the police and all of a sudden after about five days, this note was introduced as an after thought. There is no crime team report filed, the reasons are best known to the Investigating Officer. In case the spot and surroundings were searched by the Crime Team or its photographs were taken, the S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 9 of 21 same ought to have been filed, whereas the same was intentionally not filed as nothing was appearing suspicion. It is also admitted case of prosecution witnesses that the personal items belonging to Manoj were vanished at the time of cremation and last rites, nothing was left for recovery of any paper or belongings of Manoj alias Bobby.
It is apparent from the chargesheet and also from the cross examination of witnesses that Manoj alias Bobby was a habitual drinker, he was a person of quarrelsome nature and in fact he was having no money to buy liquor and that is why his mother Smt. Shanti/PW1 had left the house and she was living somewhere else visavis the police has not collected any material evidence or record to show that Smt. Shanti was undergoing any treatment, it authenticates that false case was introduced later on as an after thought against the accused persons. When the prosecution witnesses, inclusive of relatives of the deceased clearly mentions that there was no enmity or anything suspicion, the accused persons cannot be put to perils and there is no material which may cull out any evidence to be construed an abet to suicide to the said Manoj. Firstly, ingredients of abet to suicide are missing in the evidence, secondly, it was an after thought FIR, thirdly, the entire material has not been supporting and proving the case of prosecution and the material being relied upon is not free from clouds of doubt. The accused persons deserve acquittal.
5.3 On the other side, the prosecution submits that charge has been proved, the circumstances themselves are speaking a lot about its natural course. Manoj alias Bobby committed the suicide, it was an S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 10 of 21 unnatural death, it has been confirmed in the medical opinion. He had written the suicide note but it was discovered around 05.8.2012 and immediately police was handed over the same and then investigation was carried, consequent thereto the things unfolded the previous record, which was also collected. The previous record of DD No. 24A dated 01.10.2011 Ex.PW6/C alongwith proceedings (Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/A) and the contents of suicide note are matching each other that it was the accused persons who were harassing and torturing the said Manoj as well as complainant Shanti and as unbearable conditions created by the accused, provoked the said Manoj to commit the suicide. It clearly makes out the case of prosecution against the accused persons beyond all kinds of doubt.
So far statement of three persons (Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D) are concerned, it was at the stage of inquest proceedings, however, despite their such statements, the death was unnatural and post mortem was done but after registration of the case and investigation thereon, the oral evidence of witnesses the scientific opinion and cause of death are against the accused persons.
PW11 had also analyzed writings on the questioned document of suicide note as well as the previous record of the year 2011, PW11 has analyzed the writings and then came to the conclusion and opined, it would not give any benefit to the accused that the source of cash memo of M/s L.D. Traders was not ascertained by the IO, since it was not required so, otherwise it would be an endless scope of investigation. The investigating officer carried the investigation appropriately and it S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 11 of 21 was a natural course of event that Smt. Shanti came across the suicide note in the clothes of Manoj, it does not mean that it is a created suicide note. Lastly, there are many varied defences taken on behalf of accused, all of them are contradictory each other, which do not give any benefit to the accused persons. The prosecution had proved the case.
6.1 (Findings with reasoning) The contentions of both the sides are considered and assessed keeping in view the material and evidence on record and the provisions of law, particularly sections 306 IPC and sec. 107 IPC, they are mentioned hereunder: "Section 306 IPC - Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever, abets, the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, & shall also be liable to fine".
Section 107 IPC - Abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is separate and distinct offence provided in the Code.
A person abets the doing of a thing when (i) he instigates any person to do that thing or (ii) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for doing of that things, or (iii) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that things.
Section 108 of IPC defines abettor of offence.
6.2 In order to constitute offence of abet to suicide, there should be either direct or indirect instigate or to facilitate/help to the commission of that offence or one is involved in doing of that things vis a vis the abettor had such intentions that victim shall commit the suicide.
6.3 While assessing the evidence, many undisputed facts are discovered, they are cull out as follows: S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 12 of 21
(a) Manoj alias Bobby died on 31.07.2012 at his residence because of suicide by hanging and at that time, he was alone at his house, his mother Smt. Shanti had been to her sister's house for many days,
(b) Manoj committed the suicide by closing door of his house from inside and that door was opened by push of leg by Sh. Jasbir, as he was living in first floor as a tenant in the same building, where Manoj committed the suicide,
(c) The cause of death opined by PW2 Dr. Akash Jhanjhee, on the basis of internal examination as well ad viscera report, is that Manoj died of 'asphyxia as a result of ante mortem ligature hanging', two chunni were given to police authorities by the hospital;
(d) The crime team visited the spot, as per investigating officer/PW9 SI Vipin Yadav. Crime team report and photograph have not been filed and there is no explanation in the record for want of filing them ,
(e) The ligature material were two chunnis, which were handed over by the hospital authorities to SI Vipin Kumar, when matter was pending inquiry under DD no. 19A dated 31.07.2012, the same were seized by the police by seizure memo (Ex.PW9/F), however, the chunnis were not produced by MHC (M) in the court during evidence and it is matter of record of proceedings dated 08.2.2017 that case was kept awaited for long hours expecting production of chunnis. But lateron on 6.7.2017 extract of register no. 19 (Ex.PW10/A) with DD no. 56B (Mark X) was filed that the chunnis were misplaced, either while shifting the malkhana S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 13 of 21 to other place or it is damaged or bite by rats, without particulars/details about shifting of malkhana etc. 6.4 On further analysis of case of both the sides, on the one side the prosecution maintains that Manoj alias Bobby committed the suicide, which was abet by the accused persons in one way or the other while intercepting the complainant Smt. Shanti or Manoj alias Bobby or by abusing them or to threaten them. On the other side, the accused had put various defences that none of the accused had abet Manoj alias Bobby to commit the suicide but he was a habitual drinker, he used to quarrel with the neighbourer, he had also requested for a job to accused Surender since he was unemployed but because of his habits of drinking, the job was declined. He used to demand money from his mother for liquor and because of his that conduct, his mother Shanti went to other place leaving the said Manoj alias Bobby in that building and later on a false case has been introduced by the accused to extort money from the accused persons.
7.1 It is apparent that some issues have been raised about the opinion given by handwriting expert or such allied issues, firstly they are taken.
7.2 Firstly, it is contended that the said note is written on cash memo no. 27 of M/s L.D. Traders showing its address 167, Gajju Katra Shahdara, Delhi, however, the investigating officer has not made any inquiry with regard to as to how blank cash memo came to Manoj alias Bobby, whereas, this contention carry no weight, since, this document was produced by Smt. Shanti/PW1 to the police and it is to be seen S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 14 of 21 whether or not, it is in the writing of Manoj alias Bobby; the writing is fact in issue, accordingly, this contentions stand disposed off.
7.3 The second issue was that PW11 Ms. Sunita gave two reports viz the report dated 22.09.2015 (Ex.PW11/A), when seeking further documents to give her report but on the same very basis of two documents already given, she opined another report dated 22.07.2016 (Ex.PW11/B) that possibility of common authorship of writings Q1, Q2, A1 and A2 cannot be ruled out.
PW11 has specifically clarified that report dated 22.07.2016 was rendered on the directions of court's order on the same set of papers/documents as no further material was available with the investigating agency. Hence, this issue also stands disposed off as PW 11 had given the opinion as two documents (A1 and A2) were tendered as admitted writing for comparison with the questioned documents (Q1 and Q2).
7.4 The investigating agency had provided admitted writings 'A1' appearing on letter dated 02.10.2011 (Ex.PW6/A) under the signatures of Bobby Manoj and Sunder Lal and 'A2' appearing on the left margin of MLC (Ex.PW8/A). No other material was made available to the Regional FSL, Chanakya Puri for opinion. Ld. Defence counsel has rightly pointed that as per statement of PW8 the writings at point 'A2' was not written in the presence of medical officer, otherwise, it was an MLC, there was no business of anyone else to intervene on MLC or make endorsement like at point 'A2' but now it is a factual position that it so done so. Simultaneously, the letter (Ex.PW6/A) was proved through S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 15 of 21 witness PW6 ASI Charan Dass, who is the same officer who was assigned with to deal DD no. 24A dated 01.10.2011 but nowhere in the entire statement of PW6 was confronted or suggested that signature of 'Sunder Lal' appearing on Ex.PW6/A does not belong to him (Sunder Lal) and on the same analogy, signature of 'Bobby Manoj' made on application (Ex PW6/A) remained unchallenged. Lastly, PW1 Smt. Shanti was crossexamined about bank account by Manoj Bobby, she has clearly responded that Manoj Bobby was not maintaining any bank account visavis Manoj was not having any savings. Therefore, only two documents were available for handwriting expert opinion and the same were sent to the FSL as specimens for comparison with the questioned suicide note. Accordingly, this contention also stands disposed off.
7.5 Now the another relevant fact in issue is with regard to writings appearing on note Ex.P1/PW1 is to be answered, whether or not it is of Manoj Babloo?
PW11/Senior Assistant FSL has given two reports (of 22.09.2015 and 22.07.2016) but they are not contradictory reports, since in the first report, PW11 has opined that there are some similarities observed between questioned and standard writings in execution of various characters and for want of availability of additional document, the other /subsequent report was rendered with a conclusive opinion. PW11 opined common authorship of writings in the specimen and questioned documents. There is no other material or fact brought on record on behalf to make opinion other than the opinion given by S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 16 of 21 expert/PW11. Hence, the note Ex.P1/PW1 is in the writing of Bobby. However, this note does not bear any date, month or year but it was discovered by Smt. Shanti in the clothes of deceased Manoj alias Bobby.
7.6 It was contended on behalf of accused that at the time of last rites or cremation, all the belongings of Manoj were vanished visavis nothing was reported by the crime team about discovery of such diary or paper or pen at the place of incident.
There is a tradition in Hindus families that articles or personal belongings taken at the cremation ground or at the time of last rites are not to be carried back home and articles are to be left or abandoned or disposed off with the dead body or submerge in the flowing river. Whereas, Smt. Shanti has explained that this note Ex.P1/PW1 was lying in the coat kept in the almirah and it was never the case of prosecution that it was lying in the pocket of clothes worn by the deceased or it was carried at cremation ground. Hence, the objection and issue raised on this count also stand disposed off.
8. Thus with the disposal of various contentions of both the sides, it has already been held that note Ex.P1/PW1 is in the writing of Bobby/Manoj and there was previous incident on 01.10.2011, the MLC of Manoj (Bobby) and application for compromise by Sundar Lal and Manoj was there. By taking stock of these facts and features, statement of witnesses and the rival stands, it is to be seen whether there is abet to suicide by the accused to Bobby/Manoj, particularly, there are different components and limbs of note Ex.P1/PW1 viz. he had given S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 17 of 21 history of previous altercation between Sundar Lal and his nephew on one side as well as Bobby on the other side, then about after compromise of that case that Bobby's mother was being abused by them visavis Bobby was intercepted or threatened or get threaten by Arun himself or through Akash and consequent apprehensions to Bobby. There is another component of suicide note whereby Bobby seeks forgiveness from his mother or to apologize from his two sisters and also his one sister is like dead for him and not to permit his mama and mami (i.e. maternal uncle and maternal aunt) to see his dead body, whereas he loves a lot to his mother, he also apologizes to his mother. The last limb of suicide note is an information to his mother that there is Rs. 1,500/ in the inside pocket of his coat, to be utilized for his cremation and his mother could not understand him. Thus there are many dimensions in the suicide note.
9.1 By applying the test of law of section 306 IPC r/w sections 107/108 IPC, to the facts of this case, it is held that charge u/s 306 IPC could not have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against any of accused and they are acquitted for the following reasons :
(i) the suicide note (Ex P1/PW1) has many components and one of them reflects the personal relations of Bobby Manoj with his sisters, maternal aunt and maternal uncle and Manoj's perception about them;
(ii) in one of component of suicide note, he gives reference of previous police report in PS Farsh Bazar vis a vis abuses by those persons to Bobby and his mother, then about extend of threats exclusively by Arun and Sunder;
S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 18 of 21(iii) the previous police complaint of I/2.10.2011 was compromised and the incident of suicide is of 31.7.2012 , which was after about ten months of compromise and on the day of incident Manoj was alone in his room, his mother/PW1 had been at the house of her sister for last many days;
(iv) complainant/PW1 Smt. Shanti had not stated any specific date or occasion, when she or her sons was abused or what was abused nor the note (Ex P1/PW1) gives any such indication;
(v) the suicide note reads 'after my death, strict action is to be taken against Santoo, Amit, Arun, Sunder, Johny, A* since they have made me to die', however, nothing is appearing in the entire suicide note that what exactly was attributable to accused persons, which provoked or instigated or abetted Manoj to commit suicide that it prevail so in the mind of Manoj that he thought of just to end his life, when this note also mentions about other state affairs in the relations of Manoj. There is no mentioning of any other specific fact immediately on or before 31.7.2012, when he ended his life. It does not fulfill the requirements of law, mentioned in paragraph 6 above;
(vi) there is also no such facts mentioned by Smt. Shanti in her statement either to court or to police, of any event immediately before the committing the suicide by her son, actually Smt. Shanti had been living with her sister for the last many days;
(vii) it also appearing from the contents of note (Ex P1/PW1) that Manoj had kept Rs.1500/ in pocket of his coat, however, PW1 has not S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 19 of 21 uttered any fact whether such amount was found in the pocket of coat. PW1 says that suicide note was found in the pocket of coat, whereas suicide note does not indicate about the place, where it was left by him or amount was also found with note;
(viii) Crime team had inspected the spot of crime but SI Vipin Yadav (now No.D 273 PS Kotwali) has not filed it with the charge sheet and his explanation was that it would be lying in the office of Crime team, was it not the duty of IO to complete investigation in all respect; [it is to be looked into by the competent authorities of police]
(viii) the hospital authorities gave to two chunnis of ligature hanging to police, the same were not produced in the court during statement of doctor witness/PW2 in Feb. 2017 but later on July 2017 a copy DD no.56B of 8.2.2017 about its misplace or damage or bite by rat, was produced to excuse its production. Extract of Register no.10 was produced ASI Rajender no.211 PS Farsh Bazar. There are serious lapses on the part of MHC (M) in respect of nonproduction of case property and to maintain it. Moreover, RaznamajaA and RoznamajaB are meant for specific purposes and it cannot be used as per convenience, as appears to have been done by MHC (M), [this aspect is to be looked into by the competent authorities of police].
9.2 There was much emphasis on behalf of accused as if Manoj was habitual drinker, whereas nothing has surfaced so. In MLC dated 1.10.2011 (Ex PW8/2) smell of alcohol from the mouth of Manoj is mentioned and in the chargesheet by the IO, whereas mere coming of alcohol smell does not mean that Manoj was habitual drinker or he S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 20 of 21 remains under the influence of liquor and IO never met Manoj vis a vis chargesheet does not name any person, who suggested that Manoj was so habitual. In addition, the accused put their case that Manoj was unemployed and his mother left because he used to demand money for liquor, whereas it has not been proved but Manoj was employed in a factory.
9.3. There were many defences taken on behalf of accused, which are also mentioned in paragraphs 6.4 above, however, the same have not been proved by the defences like the prosecution could not prove the charge.
10. Copy of this judgment be sent to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District for appropriate inquiry and action as mentioned in paragraph 9.1 above and to file compliance report within one month in this court.
11. Since Smt. Shanti had also lost her husband and Manoj Bobby/victim was her only son, who died of suicide, therefore, it is appropriate to refer and recommend to Secretary, DLSA, Shahdara, for appropriate compensation to complainant Shanti/PW1 under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2015.
Announced in open court today Wednesday, Bhadra 29 Saka 1939.
(Inder Jeet Singh) Additional Session Judge04 (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi 20.9.2017 S.C. No. 18/15 State Vs. Bijender & Others. Page 21 of 21